Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00350)

On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Bart Lidofsky wrote:
> 
> 	However, like many was, the actual battles are about a much larger
> issue. The largest theosophical organization, The Theosophical Society,
> represented in the United States by the TSA, has been accused of being a
> repressive organization, hypocritcally trying to stamp out the truth
> while claiming a dedication for the Truth. Some painted as the major
> villains are friends of some of us here. We are being told that we
> belong to an organization which is far different and far more sinister
> than the one in which we see ourselves. 
> 
> 	In other words, those who are happy to be members of the TSA are
> effectively being called repressive or happy slaves. Being neither, we
> try to correct the situation.

Bart ...
	I'm sorry you have interpreted criticisms of HQ to mean that any
members are being called "repressive or happy slaves". It seems a bit of a
stretch to me - Theosophists have all sorts of things they want out of the
TSA ... for many, being able to attend an occaisional meeting, or getting
the Quest, or borrowing a book now and then from Olcott is all they are
really interested in - and TS politics means absolutely nothing to them.
And certainly many of HQ's harshest critics still maintain membership - so
if your "in other words" is true, with their criticism they are calling
*themselves* "repressive or happy slaves". This hardly makes any sense. If
the situation you are trying to correct is what you perceive to be a
mis-catagorization of yourself, then nothing needs correction, as this is
your interpretation - I know of no critic that has ever said, or even ever
thought, that the *membership* was at fault for being happy to be members.

If, however, what you mean by "correcting the situation" is defending HQ
on this list against completely false charges ... well, I for one would
welcome that - but I hope you will investigate the situations before you
simply conclude HQ is guiltless. You might find - as a number of those who
were quite supportive of HQ found - that there unfortunately *is* quite
valid reasons to be disturbed by some of the actions of the faction now
running our organization. 

As a for instance ... what do you know of the Bing situation? Remember
several years ago (I do ... it was what turned me - who was quite happy
with and supportive of the TSA and thought at one time of running for
office or contributing in some other way - into a critic)? Bing was the
National Lecturer. He was well liked and extremely well respected
throughout the country. His grasp of Theosophy is formidable, his
presentations were excellent, and I remember him taking particular care to
take time for new members ... in fact I remember once he had lectured at
our branch, had been on the road all day, spoke at a public lecture that
night and was scheduled to leave early the next day, and yet he took
almost an hour after the meeting to sit down with a young newcomer (who
was not yet even a member) and explain several concepts at an exceedingly
basic level - and did so in fashion that gave the person no feeling of
being talked down to or patronized. He was a tireless servent of
Theosophy. He was, unfortunately though, rather more open minded and
original about Theosophy than was the faction of fundamentalists that now
control HQ, and were just coming to power when Bing ran (against Dorothy
A.) for President.

At the time Bing was living on the grounds at HQ - he didn't make much
money as the National Lecturer, but had room and board (when he wasn't on
the road ... which he was a considerable amount of the time). Well, when
he ran, *John Algeo* sent a *letter to the membership* urging members to
*vote against Bing*. I remember the letter, our whole branch had two
meetings about it, it was so upsetting - several members were
downright livid. Algeo, who at the time was (I believe) on the board,
presumably used the HQ mailing list - and (though this I cannot verify)
presumably did not personally pay for printing and postage for a mass
mailing. It makes me chuckle - Bing is now on the Board ... I wonder what
would happen if, prior to the next election, *Bing* tried to use the HQ
mailing list and resources to mail a general letter urging the membership
to *vote against Algeo*. Do you suppose Algeo would permit Bing to use the
same tactics against him that he used against Bing? This, however, is a
moot point - as it would not even *occur* to Bing to stoop to such levels.    

Well, Dorothy won - by a miniscule margin (and with questions about the
voting process). What happens then? Bing is in Texas doing some sort of
project meant to develop Theosophy there and the Board votes to *fire*
Bing, and flys Lynda Jo Pym to Texas to hand him a letter saying he is
terminated and has a month for himself and his family to vacate the
premises at Wheaton. This is after literally years of service to national
Theosophy. No notice, not even an offer of severance pay, just get the
hell out. I happen to know the dirty details of this because Bing
contacted a good friend of mine - our Lodge's President and an attorney -
for advice about the situation. My friend was in the process of filing a
wrongful termination suit against Headquarters ... and tells me he would
have won *easily* in court, as the firing was so obviously purely
political ... but *Bing* decided to let it go ... to *forgive*, as even
after the treatment he received, he didn't want to fight. 

It was after that election that another significant change took place -
the Bylaw was passed that prevented anyone from running for President
unless *they had first served a term on the Board*. This meant that when
the next election occured, Algeo would have met that new qualification,
while effectively *preventing* Bing from running against him. Bing had
been working at the national level ... and more than that, had been a
businessman ... and far more qualified than a college professor to do good
administrative work - and (IMO) probably would have beaten Algeo *badly*
in an election - as there were so many people deeply upset about HQ's
treatment of Bing.  

*This*, Bart, is just *bullshit* behaviour. I think it is more than just a
minor difference of opinion - it is one of several situations I'm aware of
that I do *not* believe the people running the TSA should get away with.
Yet they *do* get away with it (or at least have up to now). Bing, I
think, operates as one who believes in forgiveness and compassion, and
takes the long view. Even when he was explaining the situation (I asked
him about it) he would not speak ill of another Theosophist. He was hurt,
and sad, but showed an integrity scales of magnitude above those who had
decided he was "in the way" and (as I think I remember Algeo saying in the
letter) "not good for Theosophy". (NOTE: If you want, I think a friend
still has a copy of that letter - if you wish I could try to hunt it up
and perhaps post it to the list). He is now serving a term on the Board -
and I hope will in the future run for the Presidency. 

>From my own point of view - I am not inclined to simply ignore and excuse
such behaviour. And the *service* to Theosophy that I once hoped would be
on behalf of and in cooperation with the TSA is to do whatever I can, in
whatever circles, to periodically severely critisize actions I consider
immoral, often close to downright illegal, and so far below the standards
we should expect from the TSA leadership that I believe it threatens the
organization itself. I am sorry if you choose to somehow interpret this as
meaning *you* are "repressive or a happy slave" - but you are responsible
for such an interpretation ... it is not something any of the HQ critics
have ever meant, said, or would even want to imply. It is uncomfortable to
dwell on such nastiness - most Theosophists would likely much prefer to
talk philosophy - but every member of an organization has (IMO) a
responsibility for the behaviour of the organization. You may serve the
TSA by keeping the New York Lodge healthy and dynamic ... but perhaps
you'll acknowledge that *if* the TSA is going to at least imply that it is
a democratic organization, the checks and balances provided by people
bringing distasteful behaviour by the leadership into open discussion is
*healthy* ... and an equally valid avenue of service.

Now, I wonder, how would you "correct the situation" with Bing? Do you
think Algeo & Co. were justified in their actions? I would like to hear
the justification. Do you think any of my facts are in error? Please
demonstrate which ones. If neither is the case, however, do you not find
it a bit *disturbing* ... might you not concede that the act of leveling
criticism at HQ, of not letting such behaviour be buried or forgotten,
*is* a way of "correcting a situation"?
							Regards, -JRC